KNUDSON, J.: Paula Ellis appeals her jury trial conviction of criminal solicitation
to commit perjury. See K.S.A. 21-3303; K.S.A. 21-3805. On appeal, Ellis contends
that the evidence was insufficient because the quantum of proof required in a perjury
case was not presented to the jury.

The facts of this case will not be repeated in detail. Ellis does not dispute the
existence of evidence ordinarily deemed sufficient to support a criminal conviction; her
contention is that a different and unique quantum of evidence rule applies to perjury
prosecutions that was not met in this proceeding. Specifically, she relies upon the
holding in State v. Gobin, 134 Kan. 532, Syl. ¶ 4, 7 P.2d 57 (1932), that
"[t]wo
witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances are necessary to establish
the fact of perjury, and therefore the uncorroborated testimony of one witness as to the
falsity of a sworn statement is not enough to support a conviction for perjury."

The holding in Gobin is still good law in this state. See State v.
Barker, 18 Kan.
App. 2d 292, 851 P.2d 394 (1993). Unfortunately for Ellis, however, this is not a perjury
case, and the proposition that "oath against oath is insufficient to overcome the
presumption of innocence" is not applicable. 18 Kan. App. 2d at 294.

Ellis was charged and convicted of soliciting another person to commit perjury in
a juvenile case pending against a family friend. This is an inchoate or anticipatory
crime that has not the remotest resemblance to a perjury prosecution against Ellis that
would invoke the holding in Gobin. Her claim of error is without legal merit.